IdleChater wrote:All the talk about who is causing what is utterly pointless. We are way past anything useful coming from that discussion.

Agreed - provided that what you are trying to say is that the present-climate change is to a significant extent man-made, hence no need to 'talk about who is causing what' anymore. In order to prevent what you call 'a global human catastrophe', we have to wean ourselves off the non-renewable resources first and foremost - and work from there.

Actually I don't think anything can be done. Ecological collapse is inevitable, now. What we should be looking at is ways to handle that.

We're going to be weaned off those factors we contribute to global warming whether we want to or not.

Zhen Li wrote:
There are also people who use logic and reasoning, and thus evaluate sources for bias. "Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective and a refusal to even consider the possible merits of alternative points of view." - Wiki.

The fact that I am willing to be convinced of AGW if I see a correct argument, is an indication that I am not biased. The fact that everyone else here is admittedly unwilling to consider alternative points of view, indicates that you are all biased. It's just the truth.

Those rational and logical few, can tell that when a website has a name like "RealClimate" or "ThinkProgress," then that website is biased.

Zhen Li,
Your definition of bias is incorrect. Bias is

Oxford dictionary wrote:inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.
"there was evidence of bias against black applicants"
synonyms: prejudice, partiality, partisanship, favouritism, unfairness, one-sidedness;

wikipedia wrote:Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective and a refusal to even consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. People may be biased toward or against an individual, a race, a religion, a social class, or a political party. Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.

The fact that we are (admittedly) unwilling to consider that AGW is not real is not evidence of bias but evidence of our confirmed knowledge, in just the same way that we are unwilling to consider that the world is not a disc resting on the backs or four elephants.
Most of us are willing to learn more about the subject and change our opinions accordingly but we will not trust a person (or website) that denies confirmed science, any more than we would trust a person who tells us that the world is flat.
Kim

Zhen Li,
This post is so full of lies, dubious statements and half-truths that I'm going to label them. If you disagree with any particular label, ask me about it and I can point you to references supporting my labelling.

The problem is the models used to argue the AGW case - they don't match observed data from Satellites, Argo, and weather balloons.
(And no, you won't find any of these reports filed under the "Climate Denial" search on google scholar)

CO2 increased more than the models predicted, and yet there was no significant effect on temperatures,which have remained flat.

In fact, even according to the predictions of where temperature will be when CO2 was cut according to IPCC and Kyoto recommendations, the observed temperatures are drastically less.

Atmospheric hotspots predicted by the models have not been observed by weather balloon data. There was not even a small one.

Radiation emitted from the earth should decrease with increases in surface sea temperature according to the models, but according to ERBE satellite data, they have increased.

In reality, observations show that the earth gives off more heat when it is warmer - which contradicts the basic premise of the climate model.

The models aren't accurate because they get the feedbacks of atmospheric CO2 wrong. CO2 creates a thicker layer of greenhouse gas which traps more heat - not denied. But where they get it wrong is that their models assume that all industrial age warming is directly due to CO2, thus their model suggests that the increased atmospheric water vapour amplifies the 1.1C increase for each doubling of the CO2 level, making their prediction 3.3C. The skpetic's view holds that the 1.1C increase for each doubling of the CO2 level will be dampened by about 0.5, meaning the increase will only be about 0.6C. This claim matches observations because it questions the possibility that temperature increases are due entirely to CO2, and instead uses scientific data about what we know of cloud coverage - that an increase in cloud coverage reflects sunlight back into space, reducing global warming, a prediction consistent with satellite data.

On top of that, even the adjusted model doesn't allow us to predict climate change because there are thousands of other feedbacks which both reinforces and opposes the direct warming effect of CO2. If a system reacts to perturbation by amplifying it, then the system will become unstable - earth's climate, unlike that of Venus, has been stable for 4.54 billion years because it doesn't amplify perturbation, it is a perfect balance.Other factors besides feedback which haven't been considered are the ongoing effects of the pole shift, which has recently gradually been rendering our magnetic field useless, and soon will be gone for a period of time. The pole shift has already caused massive gaps in the magnetic field that not only cause chaotic and unpredictable weather, but will cause electronics to go haywire. Then there's the effects of sunspots and the sun's weakening magnetic field.

If the science were settled, then there would be only one model, and it would be in accordance with measurements. Which of the some 24 Climate Change models is the settled and consensus model?

If that model is settled, then why didn't it predict actual observations accurately? If a model were settled, then that model would have predicted actual observations accurately.

Malcolm wrote:Then of course there is the Pascal's wager approach to all of this: there is no downside to being wrong about climate change (saving rainforests, changing from fossil fuels to renewables, etc.), in fact there are positive upsides. But there are severe consequences to being right about climate change and then doing nothing (or too little too late, the present scenario).

Actually, the AGW case is often that there isn't an actual tipping point.There isn't a solution and we're going to suffer no matter what. So there's no wager to be had, Seabiscuit loses the race under every circumstance: because he's dead.

But this is actually nonsense and unscientific, all records have shown that there aren't tipping points in the climate. CO2 levels have been 8000ppm, and there was no point of no return - there was a return, welcome to it. This is because we're on the tail end of an ice age. Duh.

The CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials is 200ppm, and in interglacials is 300-400ppm -- lower than it has been for 300 million years.

Moreover, CO2 increases may not even be due to human activity. The present increase began before the steam engine was invented!

If you think something can be done about CO2 levels, you are assuming that the present CO2 without human input would be the pre-industrial average.

Why does CO2 rise after temperatures? Why is there a temporal lag? Obviously not because humans are significant contributors, but because the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with a rise in temperature, thus causing the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere due to temperature increases since the Little Ice Age. What causes temperatures to rise is a different question to one involving CO2, and to ignore that shows a lack of understanding in causality - indicating one's brain development is still infantile (just kidding).

When the world is warmer, agriculture prospers, it rains more. The higher CO2, as greenhouse studies show, the higher biodiversity.The higher CO2, the more trees grow. T[/color]he higher average temperatures, the the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator which means fewer and less violent storms. And no, this doesn't mean that the ice caps (which are growing at record levels) are going to melt. Even in Antarctica ice melts above 0C - but even in periods with orders of magnitude higher CO2 levels or temperatures, the highest recorded temperature at the south pole is -12C.

Actually, I want people to see that the consensus view isn't maintainable.

I remember on another board I once did a similar thing with another consensus topic, and it took something like 20 pages, but in the end I convinced the person I was talking with.

Similarly, I make concessions all the time - otherwise I wouldn't have this opinion of AGW. Everyone who doubts AGW once believed in it. No one is told in school to question it, so belief in AGW is default. It's part of the state religion.

So no, I'm not just a contrarian. I am happy to say my views change very frequently when I encounter a better argument.

Some people just don't understand the basic idea of cycles in nature.

It'll grow, and it'll shrink. It'll get hot, it'll get cold. Right now we're still recovering from an ice age, do you realise that?

Don't be surprised when a woman ovulates sometimes too.

That took me perhaps two minutes so I may have missed a couple but it will give you some idea of the scale of your misunderstanding.
As I said, I'm willing to respond to comments and questions about individual points.

Malcolm wrote:
Then of course there is the Pascal's wager approach to all of this: there is no downside to being wrong about climate change (saving rainforests, changing from fossil fuels to renewables, etc.), in fact there are positive upsides. But there are severe consequences to being right about climate change and then doing nothing (or too little too late, the present scenario).

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

You're just accepting propaganda from the cathedral of the state religion. You're closing your eyes.

Kim O'Hara wrote:The fact that we are (admittedly) unwilling to consider that AGW is not real is not evidence of bias but evidence of our confirmed knowledge, in just the same way that we are unwilling to consider that the world is not a disc resting on the backs or four elephants.
Most of us are willing to learn more about the subject and change our opinions accordingly but we will not trust a person (or website) that denies confirmed science, any more than we would trust a person who tells us that the world is flat.

You're denying confirmed science. So are all AGW proponenets.

The models don't work, they failed. Game over. for playing.

Kim O'Hara wrote:As I said, I'm willing to respond to comments and questions about individual points.

Everything taken individually is an individual point.

Kim O'Hara wrote:

People who are sceptics of AGW don't reject that any of those are reasonable objectives, another stupid strawman from the idiots at the AGW propaganda department.

AGW has all of A. Orange's characteristics of a cult:

The Cult Test wrote:1. The Guru is always right.
2. You are always wrong.
3. No Exit.
4. No Graduates.
5. Cult-speak.
6. Group-think, Suppression of Dissent, and Enforced Conformity in Thinking
7. Irrationality.
8. Suspension of disbelief.
9. Denigration of competing sects, cults, religions, groups, or organizations.
10. Personal attacks on critics.
11. Insistence that the group is THE ONLY WAY.
12. The group and its members are special.
13. Induction of guilt, and the use of guilt to manipulate group members.
14. Unquestionable Dogma, Sacred Science, and Infallible Ideology.
15. Indoctrination of members.
16. Appeals to "holy" or "wise" authorities.
17. Instant Community.
18. Instant Intimacy.
19. Surrender To The Group.
20. Giggly wonderfulness and starry-eyed faith.
21. Personal testimonies of earlier converts.
22. The group is self-absorbed.
23. Dual Purposes, Hidden Agendas, and Ulterior Motives.
24. Aggressive Recruiting.
25. Deceptive Recruiting.
26. No Humor.
27. You Can't Tell The Truth.
28. Cloning — You become a clone of the group leader or other elder group members.
29. You must change your beliefs to conform to the group's beliefs.
30. The End Justifies The Means.
31. Dishonesty, Deceit, Denial, Falsification, and Rewriting History.
32. Different Levels of Truth.
33. Newcomers can't think right.
34. The Group Implants Phobias.
35. The Group is Money-Grubbing.
36. Confession Sessions.
37. A System of Punishments and Rewards.
38. An Impossible Superhuman Model of Perfection.
39. Mentoring.
40. Intrusiveness.
41. Disturbed Guru, Mentally Ill Leader.
42. Disturbed Members, Mentally Ill Followers.
43. Create a sense of powerlessness, covert fear, guilt, and dependency.
44. Dispensed existence
45. Ideology Over Experience, Observation, and Logic
46. Keep them unaware that there is an agenda to change them
47. Thought-Stopping Language. Thought-terminating clichés and slogans.
48. Mystical Manipulation
49. The guru or the group demands ultra-loyalty and total commitment.
50. Demands for Total Faith and Total Trust
51. Members Get No Respect. They Get Abused.
52. Inconsistency. Contradictory Messages
53. Hierarchical, Authoritarian Power Structure, and Social Castes
54. Front groups, masquerading recruiters, hidden promoters, and disguised propagandists
55. Belief equals truth
56. Use of double-binds
57. The group leader is not held accountable for his actions.
58. Everybody else needs the guru to boss him around, but nobody bosses the guru around.
59. The guru criticizes everybody else, but nobody criticizes the guru.
60. Dispensed truth and social definition of reality
61. The Guru Is Extra-Special.
62. Flexible, shifting morality
63. Separatism
64. Inability to tolerate criticism
65. A Charismatic Leader
66. Calls to Obliterate Self
67. Don't Trust Your Own Mind.
68. Don't Feel Your Own Feelings.
69. The group takes over the individual's decision-making process.
70. You Owe The Group.
71. We Have The Panacea.
72. Progressive Indoctrination and Progressive Commitments
73. Magical, Mystical, Unexplainable Workings
74. Trance-Inducing Practices
75. New Identity — Redefinition of Self — Revision of Personal History
76. Membership Rivalry
77. True Believers
78. Scapegoating and Excommunication
79. Promised Powers or Knowledge
80. It's a con. You don't get the promised goodies.
81. Hypocrisy
82. Lying. Denial of the truth. Reversal of reality. Rationalization and Denial.
83. Seeing Through Tinted Lenses
84. You can't make it without the group.
85. Enemy-making and Devaluing the Outsider
86. The group wants to own you.
87. Channelling or other occult, unchallengeable, sources of information.
88. They Make You Dependent On The Group.
89. Demands For Compliance With The Group
90. Newcomers Need Fixing.
91. Use of the Cognitive Dissonance Technique.
92. Grandiose existence. Bombastic, Grandiose Claims.
93. Black And White Thinking
94. The use of heavy-duty mind control and rapid conversion techniques.
95. Threats of bodily harm or death to someone who leaves the group.
96. Threats of bodily harm or death to someone who criticizes the group.
97. Appropriation of all of the members' worldly wealth.
98. Making cult members work long hours for free.
99. Total immersion and total isolation.
100. Mass suicide.

He's joking, of course, but I wonder how long it will be before that sort of thing happens for real. Tobacco companies have been sued for promoting smoking while knowing it is harmful to health; frackers are being *sued for groundwater contamination* (Google that phrase for lots of results). Maybe the next step is fossil fuel companies being sued for undermining confidence in climate science and setting carbon mitigation efforts back by decades.
We can only hope ... or maybe look for a friendly class-action lawyer

You're just accepting propaganda from the cathedral of the state religion. You're closing your eyes.

Kim O'Hara wrote:The fact that we are (admittedly) unwilling to consider that AGW is not real is not evidence of bias but evidence of our confirmed knowledge, in just the same way that we are unwilling to consider that the world is not a disc resting on the backs or four elephants.
Most of us are willing to learn more about the subject and change our opinions accordingly but we will not trust a person (or website) that denies confirmed science, any more than we would trust a person who tells us that the world is flat.

You're denying confirmed science. So are all AGW proponenets.
...
The models don't work, they failed. Game over. for playing.
...
AGW has all of A. Orange's characteristics of a cult ...

Zhen Li,
You are rejecting all of my knowledge about climate change and global warming. Equally, I am rejecting all of yours.
My knowledge is firmly based on sources I trust. Equally, so is all yours.
I don't think either of us will convince the other if we just keep on going without examining why we believe what we believe and why we trust the sources we trust.
I am willing to examine those issues. Are you?

If you're familiar with Kuhn, you'll know that fundamentally science is the same as law. Whether a theory is accepted or not is simply a matter of whether it convinces the jury. Each year, as the evidence of systematic falsification and cover up grows and make front page headlines, the % of people who doubt AGW grows. Each year we have one more year of evidence for why the AGW models are false, so the % can only keep growing.

We've already discussed sources, in the end only a third party with no prior knowledge on the matter can be a judge of who is right and who is the crypto-inquisitor.

The problem is that the religion of AGW is state dogma and taught in all schools in the western world. Despite this, most people are starting to doubt AGW because I think most people naturally do have an intuitive understanding of what a cult is when they see it. This is just like the scopes monkey trial, in that, people will tend to coalesce in agreement about what is religion and what is science - hence the growing belief in evolution as science, and declining belief in creationism, because evidence for what is scientific keeps growing, and evidence for why the cult is religion is non-existent and contradictions keep becoming more glaringly obvious as the body of empirical data increases. But really, an impartial jury would need to be taken from some place where they aren't propagandised from infancy.

Zhen Li wrote:But really, an impartial jury would need to be taken from some place where they aren't propagandised from infancy.

Not really. Regardless of who is right in due time it will become obvious. The only scenario where that does NOT happen is where the entire world puts aside their differences and agrees to take painful preemptive measures and thus averts a crisis. Then the debate can and will continue. At that point many will say that the effort was not needed after all. But that's not going to happen imo.

So therefore I hope you're right, but I think you're wrong.

AGW has all of A. Orange's characteristics of a cult:

Just FYI, Vajrayana has at least a handful of the issues you use to define a cult.

Not at all. A fair and equal exchange of ideas ... and may the best ideas win!

Zhen Li wrote:If you're familiar with Kuhn, you'll know that fundamentally science is the same as law. Whether a theory is accepted or not is simply a matter of whether it convinces the jury.

That is untrue. The test of science is its ability to match observations - more particularly, to make falsifiable predictions.

Zhen Li wrote:Each year, as the evidence of systematic falsification and cover up grows and make front page headlines, the % of people who doubt AGW grows. Each year we have one more year of evidence for why the AGW models are false, so the % can only keep growing.

That's untrue. In fact, the converse is closer to the truth.

Zhen Li wrote:We've already discussed sources, in the end only a third party with no prior knowledge on the matter can be a judge of who is right and who is the crypto-inquisitor.

That's untrue. We can assess quality and reliability of evidence without considering any evidence at all. We can discuss belief formation without any reference to the truth or falsity of the beliefs.

Zhen Li wrote:The problem is that the religion of AGW is state dogma and taught in all schools in the western world. Despite this, most people are starting to doubt AGW because I think most people naturally do have an intuitive understanding of what a cult is when they see it. This is just like the scopes monkey trial, in that, people will tend to coalesce in agreement about what is religion and what is science - hence the growing belief in evolution as science, and declining belief in creationism, because evidence for what is scientific keeps growing, and evidence for why the cult is religion is non-existent and contradictions keep becoming more glaringly obvious as the body of empirical data increases. But really, an impartial jury would need to be taken from some place where they aren't propagandised from infancy.

That is untrue. In fact it's nonsense, and I suspect you know it.

You deny mainstream science and reject the reliability of mainstream media. If you can't or won't justify your reasons for your beliefs, you have no grounds for putting them forward here - or anywhere else.

I've justified my claims for pages and pages Kim. You've already made up your mind, you're just a contrarian. It doesn't matter what I say, you'll either dismiss it without going into any detail, or not address it at all. It's your choice, you choose to only read biased sources and not consider opposing arguments. And when I do go into any detail and have a paragraph anything longer than a few lines, you just complain that it's a "wall of words." You can make the effort, or you can keep messing around. Your choice.

As for using the precautionary principle, it's an ancient propaganda tactic. Using the precautionary principle you can justify just about any political action. You can use it in the opposing direction with just as much if not more ease, and claim that we must take action and have a mass education project to explain to people why AGW is utterly ridiculous, before they cause the suffering and deaths of thousands of innocent people in the undeveloped world who otherwise would be pulled out of poverty with modern technology. I could go on, but the point isn't the effects of AGW propaganda on poverty and suffering, but that the precautionary principle is a bunk argument -- it can't convince anyone who's mildly aware of the way argumentation and public policy works.

As for vajrayana and cults, that's a different and interesting thread. But vajrayana is highly rationalised, unlike AGW, which continues to make claims which are directly contrary to the facts. Similarly, vajrayana usually isn't suicidal, whereas AGW propagandists would justify such means for their ends.

Meanwhile, the ice caps are at record expansion, and we're all experiencing cold weather which only non-AGW models can predict. Who lied to us all and said that by now there'd be no ice at the north pole by 2013.

Carbon has almost nothing to do with climate change - it's fluctuations are simply a by-product of temperature increases and decreases which are caused by other factors and feedbacks. Humans can't control the weather, and carbon will keep increasing whether you like it or not because humans emit a minuscule amount of total CO2.

Zhen Li wrote:I've justified my claims for pages and pages Kim. You've already made up your mind, you're just a contrarian. It doesn't matter what I say, you'll either dismiss it without going into any detail, or not address it at all. It's your choice, you choose to only read biased sources and not consider opposing arguments.

Zhen Li,
You are rejecting all of my knowledge about climate change and global warming. Equally, I am rejecting all of yours.
My knowledge is firmly based on sources I trust. Equally, so is all yours.
I don't think either of us will convince the other if we just keep on going without examining why we believe what we believe and why we trust the sources we trust.
I am willing to examine those issues.
Are you?
Yes or no?

I examined the AGW argument. How couldn't I? Everyone is bombarded by it daily.

I've presented the counter argument, and the burden of evidence does tend to be on the anti-AGW side so there's more to come, the onus is on you to counter them. Changing font colours doesn't tell anyone anything.

Zhen Li wrote:Carbon has almost nothing to do with climate change - it's fluctuations are simply a by-product of temperature increases and decreases which are caused by other factors and feedbacks. Humans can't control the weather, and carbon will keep increasing whether you like it or not because humans emit a minuscule amount of total CO2.

Zhen Li wrote:I examined the AGW argument. How couldn't I? Everyone is bombarded by it daily.

I've presented the counter argument, and the burden of evidence does tend to be on the anti-AGW side so there's more to come, the onus is on you to counter them. Changing font colours doesn't tell anyone anything.

Please proceed.

Zhen Li,
You are rejecting all of my knowledge about climate change and global warming. Equally, I am rejecting all of yours.
My knowledge is firmly based on sources I trust. Equally, so is all yours.
I don't think either of us will convince the other if we just keep on going without examining why we believe what we believe and why we trust the sources we trust.
I am willing to examine those issues.
Are you?
Yes or no?

Kim

Note: I have not changed font colours ... but I do want you to notice the crucial word.

Zhen Li wrote:I examined the AGW argument. How couldn't I? Everyone is bombarded by it daily.

I've presented the counter argument, and the burden of evidence does tend to be on the anti-AGW side so there's more to come, the onus is on you to counter them. Changing font colours doesn't tell anyone anything.

Please proceed.

What do you think of "peak oil"? It's a closely related topic, not quite the same of course.

First, don't just link me to stuff, that's lazy. Explain it, otherwise I'll just post counter links and we'll get nowhere. Links can be references, you can't just say "wrong" and reference that word, you have to form an argument, i.e. premises and conclusion.

This doesn't refute the claim that the models did not predict this. The 13 year trend has been towards colder temperatures, the models predict otherwise.

It doesn't explain why it has been gotten colder, because with CO2 increases, it should be warming. The idea that this is a new polar vortex phenomenon is silly, every winter the jetstream dips down... That's what happens when it gets cold.

Zhen Li wrote:First, don't just link me to stuff, that's lazy. Explain it, otherwise I'll just post counter links and we'll get nowhere. Links can be references, you can't just say "wrong" and reference that word, you have to form an argument, i.e. premises and conclusion.

Zhen Li,
You are still rejecting all of my knowledge about climate change and global warming. Equally, I am rejecting all of yours.
My knowledge is firmly based on sources I trust. Equally, so is all yours.
I don't think either of us will convince the other if we just keep on going without examining why we believe what we believe and why we trust the sources we trust.
I am willing to examine those issues.
Are you?
Yes or no?

Kim

Note: I still want you to notice the crucial word. We're not going anywhere until you do.